Evidence
2024-25 Studies
Duration: 14 weeks
Research Partner: Prof. Nivedita from IIT Kanpur
Measuring Change in Math Anxiety
Method: Baseline and Endline measurement using mAMAS - standardized math anxiety survey
Observation: On the two most diagnostic mAMAS items, SLAM Labs students moved meaningfully toward "not anxious
Comparing Mathematical Competencies between SLAM Labs cohort vs. Control Cohort
Method: Comparing competency levels achieved in standardized IB-style assessments between SLAM Labs and Control cohort.
Observation:
For “Knowledge and Understanding” competency, 70% of SLAM Labs students reached the top achievement band (Level 7–8), versus 18% in the traditional classroom. Overall, the SLAM Labs cohort curve is significantly to the right of the traditional cohort curve.
For “Communicating Mathematical Reasoning” competency, 48% of SLAM Labs cohort reached Level 5–6 (vs 30% control), and 13% reached Level 7–8 (vs 0% control) — a meaningful difference on the criterion most resistant to change in traditional instruction. Overall, the SLAM Labs cohort curve is significantly to the right of the traditional cohort curve.
2025-26 Studies
Duration: 23 weeks
Method: Change in differentials in scores between SLAM Labs (T1) and Control cohorts (C1 through C5) going from mid-term exam to end-term exam. (Note: the exams are not standardized, hence direct comparison of scores in an exam is not appropriate).
Observation:
In Mid-terms, the SLAM Labs cohort T1 was at 37.1% marks, much behind the Control cohorts C1 through C5 (varying 42.3% to 53.4%). In the End-term exam, T1 score increased to 38.3% while the Control cohorts score decreased (varying in 39.2% to 47.1%). Thus examining the pairwise differential gaps between the SLAM Labs cohort and the Control cohorts, the SLAM Labs cohort significantly “caught up” (improved the gap) with each of the Control cohorts.
The researchers had access to marks for each question type. It was observed that the SLAMs Lab cohort scored better than the control cohorts (26.6% vs. 21.8%) on 4-6 marks analytical questions, which require reasoning, explanation, and application of concepts. While this is a strong signal of the program's impact on deeper mathematical understanding, a detailed study using standardized assessment is needed for a statistically valid study.